תורה
יכוין בקריאת ששה פסוקים אלו שהם כנגד וָ דמילוי וו דשם ב''ן לקנות הארת מתוספת נפש יתרה משבת הבאה:
כט (ג) וְנֶאֶסְפוּ־שָׁ֣מָּה כׇל־הָעֲדָרִ֗ים וְגָלְל֤וּ אֶת־הָאֶ֙בֶן֙ מֵעַל֙ פִּ֣י הַבְּאֵ֔ר וְהִשְׁק֖וּ אֶת־הַצֹּ֑אן וְהֵשִׁ֧יבוּ אֶת־הָאֶ֛בֶן עַל־פִּ֥י הַבְּאֵ֖ר לִמְקֹמָֽהּ׃
וּמִתְכַּנְּשִׁין לְתַמָּן כָּל עֲדָרַיָּא וּמְגַנְדְּרִין יָת אַבְנָא מֵעַל פּוּמָא דְבֵירָא וּמַשְׁקָן יָת עָנָא וּמְתִיבִין יָת אַבְנָא עַל פּוּמָא דְבֵירָא לְאַתְרַהּ:
(ד) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לָהֶם֙ יַעֲקֹ֔ב אַחַ֖י מֵאַ֣יִן אַתֶּ֑ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵחָרָ֖ן אֲנָֽחְנוּ׃
וַאֲמַר לְהוֹן יַעֲקֹב אַחַי מְנָן אַתּוּן וַאֲמָרוּ מֵחָרָן אֲנָחְנָא:
(ה) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָהֶ֔ם הַיְדַעְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־לָבָ֣ן בֶּן־נָח֑וֹר וַיֹּאמְר֖וּ יָדָֽעְנוּ׃
וַאֲמַר לְהוֹן הַיְדַעְתּוּן יָת לָבָן בַּר נָחוֹר וַאֲמָרוּ יְדַעְנָן:
(ו) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר לָהֶ֖ם הֲשָׁל֣וֹם ל֑וֹ וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ שָׁל֔וֹם וְהִנֵּה֙ רָחֵ֣ל בִּתּ֔וֹ בָּאָ֖ה עִם־הַצֹּֽאן׃
וַאֲמַר לְהוֹן הַשְׁלַם לֵיהּ וַאֲמָרוּ שְׁלַם וְהָא רָחֵל בְּרַתֵּיהּ אָתְיָא עִם עָנָא:
(ז) וַיֹּ֗אמֶר הֵ֥ן עוֹד֙ הַיּ֣וֹם גָּד֔וֹל לֹא־עֵ֖ת הֵאָסֵ֣ף הַמִּקְנֶ֑ה הַשְׁק֥וּ הַצֹּ֖אן וּלְכ֥וּ רְעֽוּ׃
וַאֲמַר הָא עוֹד יוֹמָא סַגִּי לָא עִדַּן לְמִכְנַשׁ בְּעִיר אַשְׁקוּ עָנָא וְאִזִּילוּ רְעוּ:
(ח) וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ לֹ֣א נוּכַל֒ עַ֣ד אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֵאָֽסְפוּ֙ כׇּל־הָ֣עֲדָרִ֔ים וְגָֽלְלוּ֙ אֶת־הָאֶ֔בֶן מֵעַ֖ל פִּ֣י הַבְּאֵ֑ר וְהִשְׁקִ֖ינוּ הַצֹּֽאן׃
וַאֲמָרוּ לָא נִכּוּל עַד דִּי מִתְכַּנְּשִׁין כָּל עֲדָרַיָּא וִיגַנְדְּרוּן יָת אַבְנָא מֵעַל פּוּמָא דְבֵירָא וְנַשְׁקֵי עָנָא:
29 (3) And there were all the flocks gathered: and they rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the sheep, and put the stone back upon the well’s mouth in its place.
(4) And Ya῾aqov said to them, My brethren, where are you from? And they said, Of Ḥaran are we.
(5) And he said to them, Do you know Lavan the son of Naĥor? And they said, We know him.
(6) And he said to them, Is he well? And they said, He is well: and, behold, Raĥel his daughter comes with the sheep.
(7) And he said, Lo, it is yet high day, neither is it time that the cattle should be gathered together: water the sheep, and go and feed them.
(8) And they said, We cannot, until all the flocks are gathered together, and till they roll the stone from the well’s mouth; then we may water the sheep.
נביאים
יב (יא) וְדִבַּ֙רְתִּי֙ עַל־הַנְּבִיאִ֔ים וְאָנֹכִ֖י חָז֣וֹן הִרְבֵּ֑יתִי וּבְיַ֥ד הַנְּבִיאִ֖ים אֲדַמֶּֽה׃
וּמַלְלֵית עִם נְבִיַיָא וַאֲנָא נְבוּאָן אַסְגֵיתִי וּבְיַד נְבִיָיא שְׁלָחֵית:
(יב) אִם־גִּלְעָ֥ד אָ֙וֶן֙ אַךְ־שָׁ֣וְא הָי֔וּ בַּגִּלְגָּ֖ל שְׁוָרִ֣ים זִבֵּ֑חוּ גַּ֤ם מִזְבְּחוֹתָם֙ כְּגַלִּ֔ים עַ֖ל תַּלְמֵ֥י שָׂדָֽי׃
אִם בְּגִלְעָד הֲווֹ אֲנוּסִין בְּרַם בְּבֵית גִלְגְלָא תּוֹרִין לְטַעֲוָן דַבַּחוּ אַף אֲגוֹרֵיהוֹן אַסְגִיאוּ כְּגַרִין עַל תְּחוּמֵי חַקְלָא:
(יג) וַיִּבְרַ֥ח יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׂדֵ֣ה אֲרָ֑ם וַיַּעֲבֹ֤ד יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבְאִשָּׁ֖ה שָׁמָֽר׃
נְבִיָא אֲמַר לְהוֹן הֲלָא יַעֲקֹב אֲבוּכוֹן אֲזַל לְחַקְלֵי אֲרַם וּפְלַח יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאִתְּתָא וּבְאִתְּתָא נְטַר עָנָא:
(יד) וּבְנָבִ֕יא הֶעֱלָ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם וּבְנָבִ֖יא נִשְׁמָֽר׃
וְאַף כַּד נְחַתוּ אֲבָהָתְכוֹן לְמִצְרַיִם נְבִיָא שְׁלַח יְיָ וַאֲסֵיק יַת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִצְרַיִם וְעַל יְדֵי נְבִיָא אִתְנְטַר:
(טו) הִכְעִ֥יס אֶפְרַ֖יִם תַּמְרוּרִ֑ים וְדָמָיו֙ עָלָ֣יו יִטּ֔וֹשׁ וְחֶ֨רְפָּת֔וֹ יָשִׁ֥יב ל֖וֹ אֲדֹנָֽיו׃
מַרְגְזִין דְבֵית אֶפְרַיִם מוֹסָפִין לְמֶחְטִי וְחוֹבַת דַם זַכַּאי דַאֲשֵׁיד עֲלוֹהִי יְתוּב וְחִסוּדֵיהּ יְתוּב לֵיהּ רִבּוֹנֵיהּ:
יג (א) כְּדַבֵּ֤ר אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ רְתֵ֔ת נָשָׂ֥א ה֖וּא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיֶּאְשַׁ֥ם בַּבַּ֖עַל וַיָּמֹֽת׃
כַּד מְמַלֵל חַד מִבֵּית אֶפְרָיִם רְתִיתָא אָחִיד לְהוֹן לְעַמְמַיָא מִתְרַבְרְבִין הֲווֹ בְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּכְדוּ דְחָבוּ עַד דִפְלָחוּ לְטַעֲוָתָא מִתְקַטְלִין:
12 (11) I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similes by means of the prophets.
(12) Indeed, Gil῾ad is iniquitous; they are become mere vanity; in Gilgal they have sacrificed bullocks: their altars are like droppings on the furrows of the field.
(13) And Ya῾aqov fled into the country of Aram, and Yisra᾽el served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.
(14) And by a prophet the Lord brought Yisra᾽el out of Miżrayim, and by a prophet was he preserved.
(15) Efrayim provoked him to anger most bitterly: therefore shall he leave his blood guilt upon him, and his Lord shall requite his reproach on him.
13 (1) When Efrayim spoke, there was trembling; he exalted himself in Yisra᾽el; but when he became guilty through the Ba῾al, he died.
כתובים
ו (לב) נֹאֵ֣ף אִשָּׁ֣ה חֲסַר־לֵ֑ב מַֽשְׁחִ֥ית נַ֝פְשׁ֗וֹ ה֣וּא יַעֲשֶֽׂנָּה׃
מַן דְגָיֵר בְּאִתְּתָא חָסִיר דְרַעְיָנָא וּמַן דְבָעֵי דִי יְחַבֵּל נַפְשֵׁיהּ הוּא עָבֵד לָהּ:
(לג) נֶגַע־וְקָל֥וֹן יִמְצָ֑א וְ֝חֶרְפָּת֗וֹ לֹ֣א תִמָּחֶֽה׃
מַכְתָּשֵׁי וְצַעֲרֵי יֶאְרַע וְחִסוּדֵיהּ לָא מִטְעֵי:
(לד) כִּֽי־קִנְאָ֥ה חֲמַת־גָּ֑בֶר וְלֹא־יַ֝חְמ֗וֹל בְּי֣וֹם נָקָֽם׃
מְטוּל דִטְנָנָא חֵמְתָא דְגַבְרָא וְלָא חָיִס בְּיוֹמָא דְפוּרְעַנָא:
(לה) לֹֽא־יִ֭שָּׂא פְּנֵ֣י כׇל־כֹּ֑פֶר וְלֹֽא־יֹ֝אבֶ֗ה כִּ֣י תַרְבֶּה־שֹֽׁחַד׃ {פ}
וְלָא נָסֵב בְּאַפֵּיהּ דְכָל דְיָהֵב לֵיהּ מוֹהֲבָא וְלָא מִתְּפֵס כַּד תַּסְגֵא שׁוֹחֲדָא:
ז (א) בְּ֭נִי שְׁמֹ֣ר אֲמָרָ֑י וּ֝מִצְוֺתַ֗י תִּצְפֹּ֥ן אִתָּֽךְ׃
בְּרִי נְטַר מֵימְרִי וּפִקוּדַי תִּטְשֵׁי גַבָּךְ:
(ב) שְׁמֹ֣ר מִצְוֺתַ֣י וֶחְיֵ֑ה וְ֝תוֹרָתִ֗י כְּאִישׁ֥וֹן עֵינֶֽיךָ׃
נְטַר פִּקוּדַי וֶחֱיֵהּ וְנִימוּסֵי הֵיךְ בַּבְתָא דְעַיְנָא:
6 (32) He who commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding: he who does that destroys his soul.
(33) A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away.
(34) For jealousy is the rage of a man: and he will not spare in the day of vengeance.
(35) He will not regard any ransom; nor will he rest content, though thou givest many gifts.
7 (1) My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee.
(2) Keep my commandments, and live; and my Tora as the apple of thy eye.
משנה
א. מְרֻבָּה מִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל מִמִּדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׁמִּדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וּבֵין בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, וּמִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ וְגוֹ'. אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְלֹא הַטּוֹבֵחַ וְלֹא הַמּוֹכֵר אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה:
ב. גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וּמָכַר בְּשַׁבָּת, גָּנַב וּמָכַר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו וְטָבַח וּמָכַר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו, גָּנַב וְטָבַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וְטָבַח לִרְפוּאָה אוֹ לִכְלָבִים, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצָא טְרֵפָה, הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֻלִּין בָּעֲזָרָה, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בִּשְׁנֵי אֵלּוּ:
ג. גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּיהֶם, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּמִין הַכֹּל. גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם אֲחֵרִים, אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ נִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְשַׁלְּמִים תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. נִמְצְאוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים זוֹמְמִין, הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְהֵן מְשַׁלְּמִין תַּשְׁלוּמֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים זוֹמֵם, בָּטְלָה עֵדוּת שְׁנִיָּה. אֶחָד מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים זוֹמֵם, בָּטְלָה כָּל הָעֵדוּת, שֶׁאִם אֵין גְּנֵיבָה אֵין טְבִיחָה וְאֵין מְכִירָה:
ד. גָּנַב עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְטָבַח וּמָכַר עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אוֹ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב וְטָבַח בְּשַׁבָּת, גָּנַב וְטָבַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גָּנַב מִשֶּׁל אָבִיו, וּמֵת אָבִיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר, גָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קָדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָם, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שֶׁאֵין חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָם, פָּטוּר:
ה. מְכָרוֹ חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מִמֵּאָה שֶׁבּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בוֹ שֻׁתָּפוּת, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְיָדוֹ, הַנּוֹחֵר, וְהַמְעַקֵּר, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. גָּנַב בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים וְטָבַח וּמָכַר חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָם, אוֹ שֶׁגָּנַב חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָם וְטָבַח וּמָכַר בִּרְשׁוּתָם, אוֹ שֶׁגָּנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּתָם, מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. אֲבָל גָּנַב וְטָבַח וּמָכַר בִּרְשׁוּתָם, פָּטוּר:
ו. הָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ וְיוֹצֵא, וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים, פָּטוּר. הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים, וּמֵת, חַיָּב. נְתָנוֹ לִבְכוֹרוֹת בְּנוֹ אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ, לְשׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וּלְשׁוֹאֵל, לְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וּלְשׂוֹכֵר, וְהָיָה מוֹשְׁכוֹ, וּמֵת בִּרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים, פָּטוּר. הִגְבִּיהוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הַבְּעָלִים, וּמֵת, חַיָּב:
ז. אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בְּסוּרְיָא, וּבַמִּדְבָּרוֹת שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֵין מְגַדְּלִין תַּרְנְגוֹלִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִפְּנֵי הַקָּדָשִׁים, וְלֹא כֹהֲנִים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי הַטָּהֳרוֹת. אֵין מְגַדְּלִין חֲזִירִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם. לֹא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם אֶת הַכֶּלֶב, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה קָשׁוּר בְּשַׁלְשֶׁלֶת. אֵין פּוֹרְסִין נִשְׁבִּים לַיּוֹנִים. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה רָחוֹק מִן הַיִּשׁוּב שְׁלֹשִׁים רִיס:
1. The principle of double payment applies more broadly than the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment, as the principle of double payment applies both to the theft of something that is alive and to the theft of something that is not alive, but the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37). Having stated a limitation to the halakha of fourfold and fivefold payment, the mishna mentions a further limitation, which applies to all three types of payments. One who steals an item after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, does not pay the double payment to the thief or to the prior owner, nor does one who slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep after a thief has already stolen it pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rather, he pays only the principal, i.e., the value of the item he stole.
2. The mishna lists a series of cases in which a thief is required to pay the fourfold or fivefold penalty. If one stole an animal, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, or based on the testimony of two other witnesses, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. If one stole an animal and sold it on Shabbat, or if he stole it and sold it for idol worship, or if he stole it and slaughtered it on Yom Kippur, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Although his sale or slaughter in these circumstances involved a sin, he is not liable to receive the death penalty for the sale and must consequently pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. If one stole an animal of his father’s and then slaughtered it or sold it, and afterward his father died and he inherited his father’s estate either on his own or in partnership with his brothers, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it and afterward he consecrated it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. In the case of one who stole an animal and slaughtered it, not for the purpose of eating its meat, but to use it for medicinal purposes or to feed the meat to dogs, and likewise a thief who slaughters the animal to eat its meat but it was found to be an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or a thief who slaughters a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rabbi Shimon exempts the thief from the fourfold or fivefold payment in these last two cases, as he maintains that the legal status of an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter.
3. If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, also based on the testimony of the same witnesses, and these witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, these witnesses pay everything, i.e., not only the principal amount but also the fourfold or fivefold payment. This is in accordance with the Torah’s decree with regard to conspiring witnesses: “You shall do to him as he had conspired to do to his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). Since these witnesses attempted to obligate the alleged thief to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, they themselves must pay that full amount. With regard to one who stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered the animal or sold it, based on the testimony of two other witnesses, if both these witnesses and those witnesses were found to be conspiring witnesses, the first set of witnesses, who testified about the theft of the animal, pay the alleged thief the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. And the last set of witnesses, who attested to the slaughter or sale of the animal, pay the alleged thief a twofold payment for a sheep or a threefold payment for an ox, which they had conspired to cause him to pay over and above the double payment. If only the witnesses in the last set were found to be conspiring witnesses, while the testimony about the theft remains intact, the thief pays the double payment to the animal’s owner and the second set of witnesses pay the alleged thief the twofold or threefold payment, the amount over and above the double payment, which is what they had conspired to cause him to pay. If only one individual from the last set of witnesses was found to be a conspiring witness, the second testimony is nullified, as it was not submitted by two valid witnesses, whereas the first testimony remains intact. If one individual from the first set of witnesses is found to be a conspiring witness, the entire testimony concerning the thief is nullified. The reason is that if there is no theft established by reliable testimony there is no liability for slaughtering the animal and there is no liability for selling it.
4. If one stole an ox or a sheep, as established based on the testimony of two witnesses, and he subsequently slaughtered or sold the stolen animal, as established based on the testimony of one witness or based on his own admission, i.e., he himself admitted that he performed these acts, without there being any witness testimony, he pays the double payment, but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. If one stole an animal and slaughtered it on Shabbat, which is a capital offense, or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it for the purpose of idol worship, or if he stole his father’s animal and subsequently his father died, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, or if he stole an animal and subsequently he consecrated it as an offering and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, in all these cases the thief pays the double payment, but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace with another animal if one of the original animals that one stole is lost or dies, the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughters one of the animals. If it is a sacrificial animal for which the owner bears no financial responsibility, the thief is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment.
5. If a thief sold a stolen animal in a partial fashion, e.g., except for one one-hundredth of it, which he kept for himself; or if he had a partnership in owning the animal before stealing it; or in the case of a thief who slaughtered the stolen animal and it became non-kosher meat in his hand because he slaughtered it improperly; or in the case of a thief who ripped open the animal rather than slaughtering it halakhically; or in the case of a thief who tore loose the gullet or windpipe of the animal as he slaughtered it, rendering the slaughter invalid, in all these cases he pays the double payment but does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The fourfold or five-fold payment applies only if the animal is entirely sold or if it is slaughtered in accordance with the halakhic definition of animal slaughter. If one stole an animal in its owner’s domain, i.e., he took hold of it or established control over it but had not yet removed it from the owner’s premises, and then he slaughtered it or sold it outside of the owner’s domain; or if he stole an animal outside of the owner’s domain and slaughtered it or sold it in the owner’s domain; or if he stole an animal and slaughtered it or sold it, and all of this occurred outside the owner’s domain, in all of these cases, he must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. But if he stole it and slaughtered or sold it, and all of this occurred in the owner’s domain, he is exempt from any of the fines for theft, as it is not considered theft until the stolen object is actually removed from the owner’s premises.
6. If the thief was in the process of leading the animal and leaving the owner’s premises, and it died while it was still in the owner’s domain, the thief is exempt from payment. If he lifted it up or led it out of the owner’s domain and then the animal died, he is liable for his theft. For an act to be considered theft, the thief must acquire the item by pulling it or moving it, which are ineffective forms of acquisition on the owner’s premises; or by lifting it up, which is effective even when performed in the owner’s domain. If the thief gave the animal as payment for the redemption of his firstborn son, or as payment to a creditor, or conveyed it for safeguarding to an unpaid bailee, or lent it to a borrower, or conveyed it for safeguarding to a paid bailee, or leased it to a renter, and he was leading out the animal and it died in the owner’s domain, the thief is exempt from payment. If that individual, following the thief’s instructions, lifted up the animal or led it out of the owner’s domain, and it subsequently died, the thief is liable for the theft. The thief is liable for instructing another to remove the animal for the purposes of payment of a debt, safekeeping, borrowing, or rental, as this is tantamount to the thief taking it with his own hands.
7. One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael, as they graze on people’s crops. But one may raise them in Syria, despite the fact that with regard to many other halakhot Syria is treated like Eretz Yisrael, and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael. One may not raise chickens in Jerusalem, due to the sacrificial meat that is common there. There is a concern that chickens will pick up garbage that imparts ritual impurity and bring it into contact with sacrificial meat, thereby rendering it ritually impure. And priests may not raise chickens anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, because of the many foods in a priest’s possession that must be kept ritually pure, e.g., teruma. Furthermore, one may not raise pigs anywhere, and a person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. One may spread out traps [nishovim] for pigeons only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, which is 8,000 cubits, from any settled area, to ensure that privately owned pigeons are not caught in the traps.
גמרא
תָּנוּ רַבָּנָן מַעֲשֵׂה בְּחָסִיד אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה גּוֹנֵחַ מִלִּבּוֹ וְשָׁאֲלוּ לָרוֹפְאִים וְאָמְרוּ אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה עַד שֶׁיִּינַק חָלָב רוֹתֵחַ מִשַּׁחֲרִית לְשַׁחֲרִית וְהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ עֵז וּקְשָׁרוּהָ לוֹ בְּכַרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה וְהָיָה יוֹנֵק מִמֶּנָּה מִשַּׁחֲרִית לְשַׁחֲרִית. לְיָמִים נִכְנְסוּ חֲבֵירָיו לְבַקְּרוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתָהּ הָעֵז קְשׁוּרָה בְּכַרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה חָזְרוּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם וְאָמְרוּ לִסְטִים מְזוּיָין בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְאָנוּ נִכְנָסִים אֶצְלוֹ יָשְׁבוּ וּבָדְקוּ וְלֹא מָצְאוּ בוֹ אֶלָּא אוֹתוֹ עָוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעֵז וְאַף הוּא בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֵין בִּי עָוֹן אֶלָּא עֲוֹן אוֹתָהּ הָעֵז שֶׁעָבַרְתִּי עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲבֵירַי: (פ''ג א') תָּנוּ רַבָּנָן לֹא יְגַדֵּל אָדָם אֶת הַכֶּלֶב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קָשׁוּר בְּשַׁלְשֶׁלֶת אֲבָל מְגַדֵּל הוּא בָּעִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לַסְּפַר וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ בַּיּוֹם וּמַתִּירוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה: תַּנְיָא רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר הַמְגַדֵּל כְּלָבִים כִּמְגַדֵּל חֲזִירִים לְמָאי נַפְקָא מִינָהּ לְמֵיקַם עֲלֵיהּ בְּאָרוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בָּבֶל כְּעִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לִסְפַר דָּמֵי. תִּרְגְּמָא נְהַרְדָּעָא. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי דוֹסְתָּאי דְמִן בִּירִי (במדבר י') וּבְנֻחֹה יֹאמַר שׁוּבָה ה' רִבְבוֹת אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנֵי אֲלָפִים וּשְׁנֵי רְבָבוֹת. הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים וּשְׁנֵי רְבָבוֹת חָסֵר אֶחָד. וְהָיְתָה אִשָּׁה מְעוּבֶּרֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם וּרְאוּיָה לְהַשְׁלִים וְנָבַח בָּהּ כֶּלֶב וְהִפִּילָה נִמְצָא זֶה גּוֹרֵם לִשְׁכִינָה שֶׁתִּסְתַּלֵּק מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הַהִיא אִתְּתָא דְעָאלַת לְמֵיפָא בְּהַהוּא בֵיתָא נָבַח בָּהּ כַּלְבָּא אָמַר לָהּ מָרֵיהּ לָא תִּסְתְּפִי מִינֵיהּ שְׁקִילֵי נִיבֵיהּ אָמְרָה לֵיהּ שְׁקִילִי טִיבוּתִיךְ וְשַׁדְיָא אַחִיזְרֵי כְּבָר נָד וָלָד:
The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who was groaning, i.e., suffering, due to a pain in his heart. Those caring for the man asked the physicians what to do for him, and they said: There is no other remedy for him but that he should suckle warm milk every morning. And they brought him a she-goat and tied it to the leg of the bed for him, and he would suckle milk from it every morning.
Days later, his friends came in to visit him. When they saw that she-goat tied to the legs of the bed, they turned back, saying: There is an armed bandit in this man’s house, and we are going in to visit him? They referred to the goat in this manner because small animals habitually graze on the vegetation of others, thereby stealing their crops.
His friends sat down and investigated this pious man’s behavior, and they could not find any sin attributable to him except that sin of keeping that she-goat in his house. That man himself also said at the time of his death: I know for a fact that I have no sin attributable to me except the sin of keeping that she-goat in my house, as I transgressed the statement of my colleagues, the Sages.
Rabbi Yishmael said: The members of my father’s family were among the wealthy property holders in the upper Galilee. And for what reason were they destroyed? It was due to the fact that they would graze flocks in the forests, and also because they would judge cases of monetary law by means of a single judge. And even though there were forests close to their houses, and therefore there should have been no problem for them to take their animals to graze in these forests, there was a small, private field and they would convey the animals on a path through it.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If there is a shepherd of small domesticated animals who repented, the court does not obligate him to sell all his animals immediately. Rather, he may sell them gradually. And likewise, in the case of a convert who came into possession of dogs and pigs (see 83a) as part of his inheritance, the court does not obligate him to sell all of them immediately. Rather, he may sell them gradually.
And similarly, with regard to one who vowed to purchase a house or to marry a woman in Eretz Yisrael, the court does not obligate him to acquire the first house or marry the first woman he sees immediately upon his arrival in Eretz Yisrael. Instead, he may wait until he finds the house or wife appropriate for him.
And there was an incident involving a certain unmarried woman who had a son who was distressing her, and she jumped up and took an oath impulsively: Any man who comes to marry me and will discipline my son, I will not turn him away. And unworthy men jumped at the opportunity to marry her. And when the matter came before the Sages, they said: She need not marry one of these men, as this woman’s intention in her oath was certainly to marry only a man who is appropriate for her.
The baraita continues: Just as the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, so too they said that one may not raise small undomesticated animals. Rabbi Yishmael says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house of mice and other vermin.
The Gemara asks: What are these genets? Rav Yehuda said: These are known in Aramaic as shartza ḥartza. And there are those who say that in Aramaic this animal is called ḥarza. This creature has short thighs and it grazes among the thorn bushes. And what is the reason that they are called shartza, a term that generally refers to creeping creatures that slither [shoretz] rather than walk? It is because its thighs are so short that it appears to slither instead of walking on legs.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: We in Babylonia have rendered ourselves like the residents of Eretz Yisrael with regard to the prohibition of the Sages against raising small domesticated animals. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Huna: What of your sheep and goats? How can you raise these animals in Babylonia?
Rav Huna said to him: Ḥova, my wife, watches the animals to ensure that they do not graze on land belonging to others. Rav Adda bar Ahava cursed Rav Huna and said to him: May Ḥova bury her son! In all the years of Rav Adda bar Ahava, no children of Rav Huna from Ḥova survived, due to this curse. There are those who say a different version of the above statement: Rav Huna says that Rav says: We in Babylonia rendered ourselves like those of Eretz Yisrael with regard to raising small domesticated animals, from the time when Rav came to Babylonia.
§ Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi once happened to be present at a house where a celebration was being held marking the passage of a week of a newborn son, i.e., a circumcision. And some say it was a house where a celebration was being held marking the redemption of a firstborn son. Rav would not enter before Shmuel, for reasons the Gemara will explain;
Shmuel would not enter before Rav Asi, as he considered Rav Asi to be greater than he; and Rav Asi would not enter before Rav, as Rav was his teacher. They said: Which of us should stay behind and let the other two come in before him? They decided: Let Shmuel stay behind, and let Rav and Rav Asi come inside in that order. Afterward, Shmuel himself would enter.
The Gemara asks: And why didn’t they decide to let Rav or Rav Asi stay behind? The Gemara explains: It was a mere gesture that Rav performed for Shmuel in initially stating that Shmuel should precede him, as Rav did not really feel that Shmuel was superior to him. Rather, on account of that incident in which he inadvertently cursed Shmuel, Rav took upon himself to treat Shmuel with deference.
In the meantime, while all this was going on, a cat [shunara] came and severed the hand of the baby. Rav emerged from the house and taught: With regard to a cat, it is permitted to kill it even if it is privately owned; and it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession; and it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner; and, in the case of a lost cat, it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner.
The Gemara asks a question with regard to Rav’s statement: And since you said that it is permitted to kill it, what is the need to state further that it is prohibited to maintain it in one’s possession? If a cat is considered such a dangerous animal that it is permitted to kill it, of course one cannot keep it in his possession. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that although Rav ruled that it is permitted to kill it, he concedes that there is no prohibition in keeping it, Rav therefore teaches us that it is also prohibited to keep it in one’s possession.
The Sages say, further questioning Rav’s statement: And since you said that it is not subject to the prohibition against theft if one takes it from its owner, what is the need to state further that it is not subject to the obligation of returning a lost item to its owner in the case of a lost cat? If one may actively steal a cat, certainly there is no obligation to return it when found. Ravina said in response: Rav was referring to its hide.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita against Rav’s ruling that it is prohibited to keep a cat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One may raise village dogs, cats, monkeys, and genets, because they serve to clean the house of mice and other vermin. The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction: It is not difficult. This ruling in the baraita is stated with regard to a black cat, which is harmless, whereas that ruling of Rav is stated with regard to a white cat, which is dangerous.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this answer: But in the incident of Rav it was a black cat. Since this cat severed the baby’s hand, it was obviously a vicious, dangerous animal. The Gemara answers: There it was a black cat, but it was the offspring of a white one. The offspring of a white cat is dangerous, even if it itself is black. The Gemara further objects: But didn’t Ravina raise this very issue as a dilemma?
As Ravina raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a black cat that is the offspring of a white one? Is it also dangerous like its parent? The Gemara answers: When Ravina raised the dilemma, it was with regard to a black cat that is the offspring of a white cat that itself is the offspring of a black cat. By contrast, in the incident with Rav it was a black cat that was the offspring of a white one, which was itself the offspring of a white cat. That animal is definitely dangerous.
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the distinguishing letters in the various names of the sons of Rav Pappa in the ensuing list: Ḥet beit dalet, beit yod ḥet, beit ḥet nun. Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa says the following three statements in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Adda bar Pappa. And some say Rabbi Abba bar Pappa says them in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa. And some say Rabbi Abba bar Pappa says them in the name of Rabbi Aḥa bar Pappa, who said them in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa.
The three statements are as follows: The court sounds the alarm on Shabbat over a breakout of sores; and a door that is locked will not be opened quickly; and with regard to one who purchases a house in Eretz Yisrael, one writes a bill of sale for this transaction even on Shabbat.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: After explaining how the public engages in prayer when there is a drought, the baraita teaches: And with regard to all other types of calamities that break out upon the community, other than drought, such as sores, a plague of locusts, flies, hornets, or mosquitoes, or infestations of snakes or scorpions, the court would not sound the alarm on Shabbat, but the people would cry out. This indicates that it is not proper to sound the alarm on Shabbat for an epidemic of sores.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to moist sores; whereas there it is referring to dry sores, which are more dangerous than moist ones. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The boils that the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians were moist on the outside and dry on the inside, as it is stated: “And it became a boil breaking out with oozing upon man and upon beast” (Exodus 9:10). The phrase “breaking out” is referring to the exterior of the wound. Since the verse specifies that the outside was oozing with secretions, it can be inferred that the inside was dry. This indicates that the sores can be of either type.
The Gemara analyzes the second of the three statements: And a door that is locked will not be opened quickly. This is clearly a metaphor, but to what is it referring? Mar Zutra said: It is a metaphor for rabbinic ordination. If one meets with resistance in his quest to receive ordination, he should take it as a sign that this opportunity will not soon open up for him again. Rav Ashi said: It means that anyone who is treated poorly will not soon be treated well. Rav Aḥa of Difti said: He will never be treated well. The Gemara comments: But that is not so; Rav Aḥa of Difti was saying only a matter that reflected what had occurred to him.
The Gemara turns its attention to the third statement: And with regard to one who purchases a house in Eretz Yisrael, one writes a bill of sale for this transaction even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that one may write this bill of sale on Shabbat? Writing on Shabbat is a prohibited labor for which one is liable to receive the death penalty.
The Gemara explains: Rather, this is as Rava said there, with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile to do it, and he does so. Here, too, it is referring to a situation where he tells a gentile to write a bill of sale for the house, and he does it. And even though telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat is generally a violation of a rabbinic decree, as the Sages prohibited telling a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to one who purchases a city in Eretz Yisrael, the court forces him to purchase a path to the city from all four of its sides, due to the importance of settling Eretz Yisrael.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Joshua stipulated ten conditions when he apportioned Eretz Yisrael among the tribes:
The conditions are that people shall have the right to graze their animals in forests, even on private property; and that they shall have the right to gather wood from each other’s fields, to be used as animal fodder; and that they shall have the right to gather wild vegetation for animal fodder in any place except for a field of fenugreek; and that they shall have the right to pluck off a shoot anywhere for propagation and planting, except for olive shoots; and that the people of the city shall have the right to take supplies of water from a spring on private property, even from a spring that emerges for the first time; and that they shall have the right to fish in the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, provided that the fisherman does not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats.
The baraita continues the list of Joshua’s ten conditions: And people shall have the right to relieve themselves outdoors behind a fence, even in a field that is full of saffron [karkom]; and they shall have the right to walk in permitted paths, i.e., those paths that cut through a private field, throughout the summer until the second rainfall, when crops begin to sprout; and they shall have the right to veer off to the sides of the roads onto private property because of hard protrusions [yeteidot] of the road; and one who becomes lost among the vineyards shall have the right to cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard, until he finds his way back to the road; and that a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] acquires its place and is buried where it was found.
The first condition mentioned in the baraita is that people shall have the right to graze their animals in forests. Rav Pappa said: We said this only with regard to small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep or goats, that graze in a forest of large trees. Small animals grazing in a forest of this kind would not destroy it. But in the case of small animals grazing in a forest with small growth, or large animals, e.g., oxen, grazing in a forest of large trees, these practices are not permitted, as in either of these scenarios the practice would destroy the forest. And, all the more so, it is understood that large animals grazing in a forest with small growth is not permitted.
The Gemara discusses the next condition mentioned in the baraita: And that they shall have the right to gather wood from each other’s fields, to be used as animal fodder. The Gemara comments: We said this only with regard to twigs of thorns and shrubs, as the field’s owner does not care about these. But with regard to other types of wood, it is not permitted. And even with regard to twigs of thorns and shrubs, we said this only when they are attached to the ground. But when they have been detached by the owner it is not permitted, as he has already claimed them for himself.
And even when they are attached we said this only when the twigs are still moist, but when they are completely dry it is not permitted, as the owner requires these for firewood. Moreover, it is permitted only provided that one does not uproot the thorn bush or shrub from the ground, but it is prohibited to pull them out with their roots.
The Gemara further discusses Joshua’s conditions: And that they shall have the right to gather wild vegetation for animal fodder in any place except for a field of fenugreek. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that wild vegetation is good for fenugreek, and therefore the owner wants it to be left in his field? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna that deals with diverse kinds (Kilayim 2:5): With regard to fenugreek that sprouted alongside various types of wild vegetation, one is not required to uproot the vegetation. Although it is generally prohibited to grow different species of vegetables together in one patch, if the species have a negative impact on each other’s growth, it is not prohibited. In this case the wild vegetation may be left alongside the fenugreek because it is harmful to it, and the halakhot of diverse kinds do not apply in a case of this kind.
Rav Yirmeya said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a case where the fenugreek was planted for its seeds; there, the baraita that lists Joshua’s conditions is referring to fenugreek planted for its stalks. When it is planted for its seeds, wild vegetation is bad for it, as it weakens the fenugreek and lowers its yield. But when it is planted for its stalks, wild vegetation is good for it, as when it is situated among vegetation it climbs on it and thereby grows to a larger size.
If you wish, say instead another answer: Here, the mishna is referring to a case where the fenugreek was planted for human consumption; and there, the baraita is referring to fenugreek planted for animal consumption. Since the owner sowed the fenugreek for animal consumption, the wild vegetation is also required by him, as this too can be used for animal fodder. And how can we know if a particular fenugreek field was planted for human or animal consumption, and thereby know whether the vegetation may be picked and taken? Rav Pappa said: If he planted it in rows [mesharei], it is for human consumption; if he did not plant in rows but planted haphazardly, it is for animal consumption.
The baraita teaches: And that they shall have the right to pluck off a shoot anywhere for propagation and planting, except for olive shoots, as this would cause damage to the olive tree. Rabbi Tanḥum and Rabbi Berayes explained this in the name of a certain elder: With regard to olive trees, one must leave a shoot the size of an egg on the trunk when detaching it from the trunk; in the case of reeds and grape vines, he may take shoots only from the place of the first knot and above. And with regard to all other trees, shoots may be taken only from the thick part of the tree, where there are many branches growing, but not from the thin part of the tree.
Furthermore, one may take from a new branch, which does not yet produce fruit, but not from old branches, which do produce fruit; and one may take from a place that does not face the sun,
but not from a place that faces the sun, where the fruits grow copiously, as it is stated: “And for the precious things of the fruits of the sun” (Deuteronomy 33:14).
The baraita further states: And the people of the city shall have the right to take supplies of water from a spring on private property, even from a spring that emerges for the first time. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: And although one may draw water from that spring, he must give money to reimburse the owner of the property. The Gemara concludes: But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as the water may be taken without payment.
The next of Joshua’s conditions is: And that they shall have the right to fish in the Sea of Tiberias, provided that the fisherman does not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats. The Gemara comments: But one may fish with nets and with traps. The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially, the tribes stipulated with each other that one may not build an underwater fence to catch fish, thereby causing an impediment to boats, but one may fish with nets and with traps.
The Sages taught in a baraita: The Sea of Tiberias was located in the portion of the tribe of Naphtali. Moreover, the tribe of Naphtali received in addition a small stretch of land equal to the full length of the rope of a fish trap. This stretch of land was located to the south of the sea, where the members of this tribe could spread out their fishing nets, to fulfill that which is stated: “And of Naphtali he said: O Naphtali, satisfied with favor, and full with the blessing of the Lord; possess the sea and the south” (Deuteronomy 33:23).
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Detached items that are found in the mountains at the time of conquest are considered to be in the possession of all the tribes equally, as spoils of war; but that which is attached, e.g., trees, are considered to be in the sole possession of that tribe that would receive the land where the tree was found.
The baraita adds: And you do not have a single tribe of Israel that did not have in its portion at least some land in the mountains, and some in the lowland, and some in the countryside, and some in the valley, as it is stated: “Turn and take your journey, and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors, in the Arabah, in the hill-country, and in the lowland, and in the countryside, and by the seashore” (Deuteronomy 1:7). And you find similarly with regard to the Canaanites and Perizzites and Amorites who inhabited the land before the Jews, as it stated in the above verse: “The Amorites and to all their neighbors.” Apparently, the Amorites and their neighbors all had this variety of types of land in their respective territories.
§ The Gemara discusses the next of Joshua’s conditions: And people shall have the right to relieve themselves outdoors behind a fence, even in a field that is full of saffron. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: It goes without saying that one may relieve himself when necessary; this stipulation is necessary only to permit the one relieving himself to take a stone out of a wall in the field with which to clean himself. Rav Ḥisda said: And it is permitted to remove a stone from a wall for this purpose even on Shabbat. Mar Zutra the Pious would take a stone in this manner on Shabbat and replace it in the wall, and say to his attendant after Shabbat: Go and plaster it over, so that it would fit securely back in the wall.
The baraita further states: And they shall have the right to walk in permitted paths, i.e., those paths that cut through a private field, throughout the summer until the second rainfall, when crops begin to sprout. Rav Pappa said: And with regard to these fields that we have in Babylonia, even dew that settled the previous night is bad for them. Even after a night of dew, the field is sufficiently moistened that trampling on it will cause damage, and therefore this condition does not apply if there was dew the previous night.
The next item on the list of conditions is: And they shall have the right to veer off to the sides of the roads onto private property because of hard protrusions of the road. The Gemara relates: Shmuel and Rav Yehuda, who lived in Babylonia, were once walking along the road, and Shmuel veered off to the sides of the road onto private property. Rav Yehuda said to him: Do the conditions that Joshua stipulated apply even in Babylonia? Shmuel said to him: Indeed so, as I say that they apply even outside of Eretz Yisrael.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya were once walking along the road, and they veered off to the sides of the road. Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosa was taking broad steps on the road, to avoid the protrusions without going off to the side of the road, while walking in front of them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Who is this man who is showing off his supposed greatness in our presence? By acting more stringently than required by halakha, he is displaying insolence.
Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps it is my student Rabbi Yehuda ben Kanosa. And if so, all of his actions are undertaken for the sake of Heaven; he is not acting out of haughtiness. When they reached him and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw him, he said to him: If you were not Yehuda ben Kanosa I would have cut off your legs with iron shears, i.e., I would have excommunicated you for your impudence.
The baraita further teaches: And one who becomes lost among the vineyards shall have the right to cut down [mefaseig] branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard, until he finds his way back to the road. The Sages taught in a baraita that this stipulation extends further: With regard to one who sees another person lost among the vineyards, he may cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard until he reaches him and brings him back up to the city or to the road. And similarly, if he himself is the one who is lost among the vineyards, he may cut down branches and enter an area of the vineyard, or cut down branches and exit an area of the vineyard until he comes back up to the city or to the road.
The Gemara asks a question with regard to this baraita: What is the point of the clause that begins with: And similarly? It is obvious that a lost individual himself has the same right to cut down branches as one who assists him to find his way out. The Gemara answers: That is taught lest you say that it is only another person who is permitted to cut down branches, as, having seen the lost party, he knows exactly where he is going to rescue the other and help him leave the vineyard, and that is why he may cut down branches; but with regard to the lost person himself, who does not know where he is going, one might have said that he may not cut down branches but must go all the way back to the boundary of the vineyard. The baraita therefore teaches us that one who is lost may cut down branches in his quest to find his own way to the nearby town or road.
The Gemara asks a further question: Why was it necessary for Joshua to stipulate that one may find his way out in this manner? After all, this halakha applies by Torah law. When one is lost, whoever can assist in helping him find his way must do so by Torah law, as it is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to return lost items to their owner. From where is it derived that the requirement applies even to returning his body, i.e., helping a lost person find his way? The verse states: “And you shall restore it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), which can also be translated as: And you shall restore himself to him. If this is required by Torah law, why did Joshua stipulate a condition to this effect?
The Gemara answers: By Torah law one is required only to walk in a roundabout path along the boundaries, without damaging another’s vines by cutting off branches. Joshua came and instituted the stipulation that one may go even further and cut off branches and ascend or cut off branches and descend, thereby leaving through the most direct route.
The Gemara addresses the last stipulation in the baraita: And that a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] acquires its place and is buried where it was found. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One who finds a corpse laid out on a main street [isratya] evacuates it for burial either to the right of the street or to the left of the street, but it may not be buried under the main street itself. If one can move the corpse either to a fallow field or to a plowed field, he evacuates it to the fallow field.
If the choice is between a plowed field and a sown field, he evacuates it to the plowed field. If both fields were fallow, or if both were plowed, or if both were sown, he evacuates it to any side where he wishes to move it. According to this baraita, a met mitzva is not necessarily buried where it is found. It may be moved elsewhere.
Rav Beivai said: The ruling of this baraita is stated with regard to a corpse laid out on the pathway. Were the corpse buried there, it would prohibit passage by priests. Since permission was already granted to evacuate it from there, one may evacuate it to any place he wishes. If, however, the corpse was in a field, it would be prohibited to move it.
§ The Gemara returns to the opening statement of the baraita, that Joshua stipulated ten conditions. The Gemara says: Are there really only ten? These conditions enumerated in the baraita are actually eleven. The Gemara answers: The condition that one may walk in permitted paths that cut through a private field in the summer was not instituted by Joshua; rather, King Solomon said it.
As it is taught in a baraita: If one’s produce was completely harvested from the field, but he does not allow people to enter into his field to shorten their route, what do people say about him? They say: What benefit does so-and-so have by denying entry into his field? And what harm are people causing him by traversing his field? Concerning him, the verse says: Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good. The Gemara asks: Is it really written: Do not be called wicked by refraining from being good? There is no such verse in the Bible. The Gemara answers: Yes, an idea like this is found in the Bible, albeit in a slightly different form, as it is written like this: “Withhold not good from him to whom it is due, when it is in the power of your hand to do it” (Proverbs 3:27).
The Gemara further questions the statement of the baraita that Joshua instituted ten stipulations: And is there nothing more that Joshua instituted? But there is also the stipulation mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: During the time of manure removal, a person may remove his manure from his property into the public thoroughfare and pile it up there for a full thirty days, so that it should be trodden by the feet of people and by the feet of animals, thereby improving its quality, as it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people.
The Gemara continues this line of questioning: And furthermore, there are the stipulations mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says: It is a stipulation of the court, i.e., it is an automatic right even when not explicitly granted, that this owner of a bee colony may enter the field of another and chop off the other’s branch in order to save his bee colony, and afterward he gives him the value of the other’s severed branch. That is, if a beekeeper finds that one of his colonies has relocated to a tree in a neighboring field, he may bring it back to his own property together with the branch, provided that he later reimburses the owner of the tree.
The baraita continues: And it is also a stipulation of the court that this bearer of wine pours out his wine from his barrel and uses the barrel to save another’s spilling honey, which is more valuable than the wine, and then he takes the value of his wine from the saved honey of the other, as reimbursement. And it is likewise a stipulation of the court that this owner of wood unloads his wood from his donkey and loads another’s flax, which is more valuable than wood, if the load of flax is stranded on the road due to a mishap, and later he takes the value of his wood from the saved flax of that other individual. Once again, the reason is that it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people.
The Gemara explains why the stipulations mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael are omitted by the earlier baraita: In the baraita, we are not speaking of individual opinions, but only of those that are accepted by all the Sages.
The Gemara further questions the number of Joshua’s stipulations: But when Rabbi Avin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to both a tree that leans into the field of another and a tree that is close to a boundary with another field, the owner of the tree brings the first fruits of the tree and recites the accompanying declaration, as described in Deuteronomy 26:5–10, as it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. This is an additional stipulation by Joshua, which means that there are more than ten.
The Gemara answers: Rather, who is the one who taught the baraita that deals with the ten conditions that Joshua stipulated? It is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, an amora. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan, another amora, can disagree with it. Rav Geviha from Bei Katil teaches this explicitly in his version of the baraita: Rabbi Tanḥum and Rabbi Berayes say in the name of a certain elder, and who is that elder? It is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Joshua stipulated ten conditions.
§ The Sages taught that Ezra the Scribe instituted ten ordinances: He instituted that communities read the Torah on Shabbat in the afternoon; and they also read the Torah on every Monday and Thursday; and the courts convene and judge every Monday and Thursday; and one does laundry on Thursday; and one eats garlic on Shabbat eve. And Ezra further instituted that a woman should rise early and bake bread on those days when she wants to bake; and that a woman should don a breechcloth; and that a woman should first comb her hair and only then immerse in a ritual bath after being ritually impure; and that peddlers of cosmetics and perfumes should travel around through all the towns. And Ezra further instituted the requirement of immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission.
The Gemara analyzes these ordinances, the first of which is that communities shall read the Torah on Shabbat afternoon. This Gemara explains that this ordinance was instituted due to those who sit idly on street corners, who do not attend the synagogue during the week.
The Gemara discusses the second of Ezra’s ordinances: And that they should read the Torah on every Monday and Thursday. The Gemara asks: Did Ezra institute this practice? But it was instituted from the beginning, i.e., long before his time. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water” (Exodus 15:22). Those who interpret verses metaphorically said that water here is referring to nothing other than Torah, as it is stated metaphorically, concerning those who desire wisdom: “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” (Isaiah 55:1).
The baraita continues: The verse means that since the Jews traveled for three days without hearing any Torah they became weary, and therefore the prophets among them arose and instituted for them that they should read from the Torah each Shabbat, and pause on Sunday, and read again on Monday, and pause on Tuesday and Wednesday, and read again on Thursday, and pause on Shabbat eve, so they would not tarry three days without hearing the Torah. Evidently this practice predates Ezra.
The Gemara answers: Initially they instituted that one man read three verses; or alternatively, that three men read three verses. Either way, the number three corresponds to the three types of Jews: Priests, Levites, and Israelites. Ezra later came and instituted that three men always read, and that ten verses altogether be read by them, corresponding to the ten idlers in a city, i.e., the ten men who are paid to spend their time dealing with synagogue and communal matters.
The next ordinance of Ezra is: And the courts convene and judge every Monday and Thursday. The Gemara explains that the reason for this ordinance is that many people are found in a city on these days, as they come from the countryside for the reading of the holy book, the Torah, which is performed on Mondays and Thursdays, as stated above.
The baraita teaches: And that one should do laundry on Thursday. This was instituted due to the need to have clean garments in deference to Shabbat.
The Gemara explains the next listed ordinance: And that one should eat garlic Shabbat eve. This is due to the fact that garlic enhances sexual potency, and Friday night is an appropriate time for conjugal relations. As it is written concerning the righteous: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, who brings forth his fruit in his season” (Psalms 1:3); and Rabbi Yehuda says, and some say it was Rav Naḥman, and some say it was Rav Kahana, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said: This is referring to one who engages in sexual intercourse every Shabbat eve.
The Sages taught in a baraita that five matters were stated with regard to garlic: It satisfies; it warms the body; it causes one’s countenance to shine; it increases one’s sperm, and it kills lice that are in the intestines. And some say that it also instills love into those who eat it and removes jealousy from them.
The next ordinance is: And that a woman should rise early and bake bread on those days when she bakes. This Gemara explains that this was instituted so that bread should be available for poor people, who go begging for bread in the mornings.
The baraita further teaches: And that a woman should don a breechcloth [sinar]. This ordinance was instituted due to reasons of modesty.
The baraita adds: And that a woman should first comb her hair and only then immerse in a ritual bath. This is to ensure that there is no dirt or other substance in the hair that would invalidate the immersion. The Gemara questions this: This is required by Torah law, Ezra did not institute this.
As it is taught in a baraita, concerning a verse that discusses one who must undergo ritual immersion: “And he shall bathe his flesh [et besaro] in water” (Leviticus 14:9). This verse teaches that no substance should interpose between his flesh and the water. When the verse states this in the expanded form of “et his flesh,” using the term “et,” this teaches that the water must come into contact even with that which is subordinate to his flesh. And what is that? It is one’s hair. Accordingly, the Torah itself states that there may not be any interposing substance in the hair at the time of immersion. What, then, did Ezra add?
The Sages say in response: By Torah law one is required to inspect his or her hair before immersion, as perhaps some hairs are knotted together, preventing contact with water at that spot, or perhaps there is some repulsive substance in his hair. One must perform this inspection because these would constitute an interposition.
And Ezra came and added to the Torah’s minimal obligation. He instituted the requirement of combing the hair even when it is known that it is not knotted and contains no repulsive substance.
The Gemara discusses the next of Ezra’s ordinances: And that peddlers should circulate through all the towns. This Gemara explains that this is because peddlers supply women’s cosmetics, and therefore Ezra instituted this practice so that women should not become unattractive to their husbands.
The Gemara analyzes the last of the ten ordinances: And he instituted the requirement of immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission. The Gemara asks: But this is required by Torah law, as it is written: “And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water” (Leviticus 15:16). The Gemara answers: By Torah law immersion is required only if one wishes to partake of teruma or sacrificial meat. Ezra came and further instituted that immersion is necessary even for reciting or studying matters of Torah.
§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise chickens in Jerusalem. The Gemara cites a baraita that contains a list of other halakhot that are unique to Jerusalem. Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem: A house situated in Jerusalem does not become irredeemable one year after its sale. Those who sell houses in other walled cities have the right to buy back their property for one year after the transaction. If they fail to do so, the house becomes the permanent possession of the buyer (see Leviticus 25:29–30). This halakha does not apply to houses in Jerusalem. And its Elders do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken as required when a murder victim is found near a city and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9); and it cannot become an idolatrous city (see Deuteronomy 13:13–19).
The baraita continues its list: And a house in Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with the impurity of leprous sores; and one may not build out projections or balconies [gezuztraot] from houses that are in it; and one may not establish garbage dumps in Jerusalem; and one may not build kilns in it; and one may not plant gardens and orchards [pardesot] in it, except for the rose gardens that were already there from the times of the early prophets; and one may not raise chickens in it; and finally, one may not leave a corpse overnight in Jerusalem.
The Gemara discusses these ten halakhot pertaining to Jerusalem, one by one: A house situated in it does not become irredeemable one year after its sale. The reason is that it is written: “And if it is not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations” (Leviticus 25:30). And the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any single one of the tribes of Israel; rather, it is considered common property. Since no one has ancestral ownership of any house in Jerusalem, its houses cannot be sold permanently.
The Gemara analyzes the next halakha: And its inhabitants do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The reason is that it is written: “If one is found slain in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 21:1). And, again, the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any one of the tribes of Israel. Therefore, it is not included in the description: “The land that the Lord your God gives you to possess it.”
The baraita states: And it cannot become an idolatrous city. The reason is that it is written, in the introduction of the passage dealing with the halakha of an idolatrous city: “If you shall hear tell concerning one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there” (Deuteronomy 13:13). And the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any one of the tribes of Israel. It is therefore not included in the description “one of your cities, which the Lord your God gives you to dwell there.”
The baraita further teaches: And a house in Jerusalem does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprous sores. The reason is that it is written: “And I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). And the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any one of the tribes of Israel. It is there-fore not included in the description “a house of the land of your possession.”
The Gemara discusses the next halakha: And one may not build out projections or balconies from houses that are in Jerusalem. The Gemara provides two reasons for this prohibition. First, it is due to the danger of contracting ritual impurity by being in the same tent as a corpse, i.e., under the same roof, in which case the impurity spreads to all items under the roof. If even a small part of a corpse is under a balcony, everyone who passes under that balcony is rendered impure. Many people come to Jerusalem to sacrifice offerings, and they must maintain a state of ritual purity. The other reason is so that those great crowds of pilgrims not be injured by colliding with the projections.
The next halakha pertaining to Jerusalem is: And one may not establish garbage dumps in it. The Gemara explains that the reason is due to the repugnant creatures that are attracted to such heaps and impart ritual impurity upon their death.
The baraita states: And one may not build kilns in Jerusalem. The reason is due to the unsightly smoke produced by kilns. The Sages sought to preserve the beauty of Jerusalem and the Temple.
The baraita teaches: And one may not plant gardens and orchards in it. This is due to the odor emitted by these places, either from discarded weeds or from fertilizer.
The next halakha on the list is: And one may not raise chickens in Jerusalem. The Gemara explains that this is due to the sacrificial meat that is consumed in Jerusalem. Since chickens peck in the garbage, they are likely to pick up items that impart ritual impurity and bring them into contact with the consecrated food, which may not be eaten in an impure state.
The Gemara discusses the last halakha: And one may not leave a corpse overnight in it. The Gemara notes that this prohibition is a tradition; there is no known explanation for it.
§ The mishna teaches that one may not raise pigs anywhere. The Sages taught in a baraita the background for this halakha: When the members of the house of Hasmonean monarchy were at war with each other, Hyrcanus, one of the parties to this war, was inside the besieged Jerusalem, while his brother Aristobulus, the other contender to the throne, was on the outside. And every day the people inside would lower down money in a box from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice, and those on other side would take the money and send up sheep to them over the wall for the daily offerings.
There was a certain elder there who was familiar with Greek wisdom, and he said to those besieging Jerusalem: As long as they occupy themselves with the Temple service, they will not be delivered into your hands. The next day they lowered down money in a box as usual, but this time they sent up to them a pig. When the pig reached to the midpoint of the Temple wall it stuck its hooves into the wall, and Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs.
At that time the Sages said: Cursed be the man who raises pigs, and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And it was concerning that time of siege that we learned in a mishna: There was an incident in which the barley for the omer offering came from the gardens of Tzerifin, far from Jerusalem, and the wheat for the two loaves of Shavuot was brought from the valley of Ein Sokher. Barley and wheat could not be brought from any nearer because the besiegers had destroyed all the produce around Jerusalem. This concludes the baraita.
The Gemara asks a question with regard to this baraita: And is it really prohibited to study Greek wisdom? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: In Eretz Yisrael,
why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language? One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or the Greek language. And Rabbi Yosei said similarly: In Babylonia, why would one speak the Aramaic language? One should speak either the sacred tongue or the Persian language. At any rate, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement indicates that there is nothing wrong with learning and speaking Greek. The Sages say in response: The Greek language is discrete, and Greek wisdom is discrete. In other words, these are two separate issues; only Greek wisdom is prohibited, not the Greek language.
The Gemara further pursues this line of inquiry: And is Greek wisdom itself actually prohibited? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: It is written: “My eye affected my soul, because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applied this verse to a personal tragedy: There were a thousand children in the household of my father, Rabban Gamliel; five hundred of them studied the Torah, and five hundred of them studied Greek wisdom. All of them were killed by the Romans; and the only ones that remain of them are I, who is here, and the son of my father’s brother, who is in Asia Minor [Asya]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement indicates that it is permitted to study Greek wisdom.
The Sages say in response: The household of Rabban Gamliel is different, as they held close ties with the government. Since knowledge of Greek wisdom was crucial for the members of this family, the Sages exempted them from the general decree, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who cuts his hair in the fashion of komi, a certain haircut favored by the Romans, this is considered one of the ways of the Amorites, i.e., a gentile practice prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:3). Despite this, the Sages permitted Avtolmos bar Reuven to cut his hair in the fashion of komi, because he had close ties with the government. Like-wise, they permitted the members of the household of Rabban Gamliel to discuss matters of Greek wisdom, because they had close ties with the government.
§ The mishna teaches: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with a chain. But he may raise a dog in a city that is close to the border of the country, and in that case he should tie it during the day but may release it at night.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: One who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs. The Gemara asks: What is the practical significance of this statement? Since both are prohibited, what is the point of this comparison? The Gemara answers: The significance is with regard to determining when one is liable to be cursed for it. Rabbi Eliezer is saying that the same curse meted out to one who raises pigs also applies to one who raises dogs.
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: Babylonia is considered like a city close to the border, and therefore it is permitted to raise dogs there. The Gemara qualifies this statement, and in this context, Babylonia is interpreted as referring only to Neharde’a, a city that was close to the border.
With regard to raising dogs, Rabbi Dostai from Biri expounded: It is written in connection to the Ark of the Covenant: “And when it rested, he said: Return, O Lord, to the myriads of the thousands of Israel” (Numbers 10:36). This verse serves to teach you that the Divine Presence does not rest upon the Jewish people if they number fewer than two thousand and two myriads, where one myriad is equal to ten thousand. The plural form of “myriads” and “thousands” indicates at least two of each. If they are lacking one individual from this total, and there was a pregnant woman among them, who was fit to complete the number by giving birth, and a dog barked at her and she miscarried as a result of the fright, this owner of the dog is found to have caused the Divine Presence to depart from the Jewish people.
There was a certain woman who entered a certain building to bake. A dog barked at her. Its owner said to her: Do not be afraid of it; its canine teeth have been removed. She said to him: It is too late for your reassurances. Take your favors and throw them on the thorns! I have felt that the baby has already moved from its place in the womb and will not be born alive.
זוהר
וַיַּצֵג אֶת הַמַּקְלוֹת אֲשֶׁר פִּצֵּל בָּרְהָטִים וְגוֹ', פָּתַח רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמַר (משלי ט') אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לְךָ וְלַצְתָּ לְבַדְּךָ תִּשָּׂא, אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לְךָ, תָּא חֲזֵי וַוי לְאִנוּן חַיָּבֵי עָלְמָא דְּלָא יַדְּעִין וְלָא מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּמִלֵּי דְּאוֹרַיְתָא, וְכַד אִנּוּן מַשְׁגִּיחִין בָּהּ בְּגִין דְּלֵית לוֹן סֻכְלְתָנוּ, מִלִּין דְּאוֹרַיְתָא דַּמְיָן בְּעֵינַיְהוּ כְּאִלּוּ כֻּלְּהוּ מִלֵּי רֵיקָנַיָּא וְלֵית בְּהוּ תּוֹעַלְתָּא, וְכֹלָּא בְּגִין דְּאִנּוּן רֵקָנִין מִדַּעְתָּא וּסְכָלֻתָנוּ דְּהָא כָּל מִלֵּי דְּאוֹרַיְתָא כֻּלְּהוּ מִלִּין עִלָּאִין וְיַקִּירִין וְכָל מִלָּה וּמִלָּה כְּתִיב בָּהּ (שם ג') יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים (שם ח') וְכָל חֲפָצִים לֹא יִשְׁווּ בָּהּ (בְּאוֹרַיְתָא) וְכָל אִנוּן טִפְּשִׁין אֲטִימִין דְּלִבָּא כַּד חֲמָאָן מִלֵּי דְּאוֹרַיְתָא לָא דַּי לוֹן דְּלָא יַדְּעֵי אֶלָּא דְּאִנּוּן אָמְרֵי דְּאִינְהוּ מִלִּין פְּגִימִין מִלֵּי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ תּוֹעַלְתָּא, וַוי לוֹן כַּד יִתְבַּע לוֹן קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא עֶלְבּוֹנָא דְּאוֹרַיְתָא וְיִתְעַנְּשׁוּן עוֹנָשָׁא דְּמָרְדֵי בְּמָארֵיהוֹן, מַה כְּתִיב בְּאוֹרַיְתָא (דברים ל''ה) כִּי לֹא דָּבָר רֵק הוּא מִכֶּם וְאִי אִיהוּ רֵק מִכֶּם אִיהוּ דְּהָא אוֹרַיְתָא כֹּלָּא מַלְיָּא מִכָּל אֲבָנִין טָבִין וּמַרְגְּלָאָן יַקִּירָין מִכָּל טָבִין דְּעָלְמָא כְּמָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר וְכָל חֲפָצִים לֹא יִשְׁווּ בָּהּ, וְהֵיךְ יֵימְרוּן דְּאִיהִי רֵיקָנַיָּא וּשְׁלֹמֹה מַלְכָּא אָמַר אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לָךְ דְּכַד יִתְחַכַּם בַּר נַשׁ בְּאוֹרַיְתָא תּוֹעַלְתָּא דִּילֵיהּ אִיהוּ דְּהָא בְּאוֹרַיְתָא לָא יָכִיל לְאוֹסָפָא אֲפִלּוּ אָת אַחַת, וְלַצְתָּ לְבַדְּךָ תִּשָּׂא דְּהָא אוֹרַיְתָא לָא יִגְרָע מִשִּׁבְחָהָא כְּלוּם וְלֵיצָנוּתָא דִּילֵיהּ אִיהוּ וְאִשְׁתָּאַר בֵּיהּ לְאוֹבָדָא לֵיהּ מֵהַאי עָלְמָא וּמֵעָלְמָא דְּאָתִי:
וַיַּצֵג אֶת הַמַּקְלוֹת וְגוֹ': פָּתַח רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמַר, אִם חָכַּמְתָּ חָכַּמְתָּ לָךְ וְלַצְתָּ וְגוֹ'. אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לָךְ, בֹּא וּרְאֵה, וַוי לְרִשְׁעֵי עוֹלָם, שֶׁאֵינָם יוֹדְעִים וְאֵינָם מִסְתַּכְּלִים בְּדִבְרֵי תּוֹרָה, וּכְשֶׁהֵם מִסְתַּכְּלִים בָּהּ, הִנֵּה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם תְּבוּנָה, דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה דּוֹמִים בְּעֵינֵיהֶם כְּאִלּוּ הַכֹּל הָיָה דְּבָרִים רֵיקָנִים וְאֵין בָּהֶם תּוֹעֶלֶת. וְהַכֹּל הוּא, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהֵם רֵיקָנִים מִדַּעַת וּתְבוּנָה, כִּי כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּם הֵם דְּבָרִים עֶלְיוֹנִים וִיקָרִים. וּבְכָל מִלָּה וּמִלָּה כָּתוּב בָּהּ, יְקָרָה הִיא מִפְּנִינִים. וְכָל חֲפָצֶיךְ לֹא יִשְׁווּ בָהּ. וְכָל הַטִּפְּשִׁים אֲטוּמֵי הַלֵּב כְּשֶׁרוֹאִים דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה, לֹא דַּי לָהֶם שֶׁאֵינָם יוֹדְעִים, אֶלָּא עוֹד שֶׁהֵם אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁהֵם דְּבָרִים נִשְׁחָתִים, דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם תּוֹעֶלֶת. וַוי לָהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר יִדְרֹשׁ מֵהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל כְּלִימָתָהּ שֶׁל הַתּוֹרָה, וְיֵעָנְשׁוּ בְּעֹנֶשׁ הָרָאוּי לַמּוֹרֵד בְּרִבּוֹנוֹ. מַה כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. כִּי לֹא דָּבָר רֵק וְגוֹ'. וְאִם הוּא רֵק, אַךְ מִכֶּם הוּא רֵק. כִּי הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ מְלֵאָה אֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הַיְקָרוֹת. מִכָּל טוּב שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, כְּמּוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב וְכָל חֲפָצֶךְ לֹא יִשְׁווּ בָּהּ. וְאֵיךְ יֹאמְרוּ, שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הִיא רֵיקָנָה, וּשְׁלֹמֹה הַמֶּלֶךְ אָמַר אִם חָכַמְתָּ חָכַמְתָּ לְךְ. כִּי כְּשֶׁיִּתְחַכֵּם הָאָדָם בַּתּוֹרָה, הַתּוֹעֶלֶת שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא, וְלֹא שֶׁל הַתּוֹרָה, כִּי בַּתּוֹרָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹסִיף אֲפִלּוּ אוֹת אַחַת, וְלַצְתָּ לְבַדֶּךְ תִּשָּׂא, כִּי לֹא יִגְרַע כְּלוּם, מִשּׁוּם זֶה, מִשִּׁבְחָהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, וְהַלֵּצָנוּת שֶׁלּוֹ לְבַדּוֹ הוּא, וְנִשְׁאָר בָּהּ, לְהַאֲבִידוֹ מֵעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וּמֵעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
הלכה פסוקה
א. הָיָה לְפָנָיו עֲשִׂיַּית מִצְוָה וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה אִם אֶפְשַׁר לַמִּצְוָה לְהֵעָשׂוֹת עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים לֹא יַפְסִיק תַּלְמוּדוֹ וְאִם לָאו יַעֲשֶׂה הַמִּצְוָה וְיַחֲזוֹר לְתַלְמוּדוֹ:
ב. כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים ל') לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִיא וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִיא. לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִיא לֹא בְּגַסֵּי הָרוּחַ הִיא מְצוּיָה וְלֹא בִּמְהַלְכֵי מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִיא. לְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים לֹא כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִסְחוֹרָה מַחְכִּים וְצִוּוּ חֲכָמִים הֱוֵי מְמָעֵט בְּעֵסֶק וַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה:
ג. כָּל הַמֵּשִׂים עַל לִבּוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וְיִתְפַּרְנֵס מִן הַצְדָקָה הֲרֵי זֶה חִלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם וּבִזָּה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְכִבָּה מָאוֹר הַדָּת וְגָרַם רָעָה לְעַצְמוֹ וְנָטַל חַיָיו מִן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא לְפִי שֶׁאָסוּר לֵיהָנוֹת בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה נוֹטֵל חַיָּיו מִן הָעוֹלָם. וְעוֹד צִוּוּ וְאָמְרוּ אַל תַּעֲשֵׂם עֲטָרָה לְהִתְגַּדֵּל בָּהֶם וְלֹא קַרְדּוֹם לַחְפּוֹר בָּהֶם. וְעוֹד צִוּוּ וְאָמְרוּ אֱהוֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת וְכָל תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ מְלָאכָה סוֹפָהּ בְּטֵילָה וְגוֹרֶרֶת עָוֹן וְסוֹף אָדָם זֶה שֶׁיְּהֵא מְלַסְטֵם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת:
One confronted with both the performance of a commandment and the study of the Torah, if the commandment can be performed by proxy he should not interrupt his study; if not, he should perform the commandment and go back to his study.6Kiddushin, 40a. G.
מוסר
ספר הרוקח דף ב' ג'
אָמְרוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה לְעוֹלָם יָמוֹד אָדָם אֶת עַצְמוֹ אִם יָכוֹל לְהִתְפַּלֵל יִתְפַּלֵּל וְאִם לָאו אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל וּכְתִיב (תהלים ט''ז) שִׁוִּיתִי ה' לְנֶגְדִּי תָמִיד לָכֵן בְּשָׁלשׁ בְּרָכוֹת רִאשׁוֹנוֹת וּבְשָׁלשׁ בְּרָכוֹת אַחֲרוֹנוֹת וּבְחִיתוּם כָּל בְּרָכָה בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה' צָרִיךְ כִּוּוּן הַלֵּב בְּדַעַת שְׁלֵימָה וּבְהַכְנָעַת הַלֵּב וְרוּחַ. וַאֲלַמְּדָךְ הַכְנָעָה וְהַשְׁפָּלָה אֵיךְ הִיא חֲשׁוּבָה לִפְנֵי אָבִיךָ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם וְתִתְחָרֵט מִמַּעֲשֶׂיךָ וְתִהְיֶה בּוֹשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂיךָ אֵיךְ תָּשִׁיב לוֹ הַנֶּפֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר נְתָנָהּ לָךְ וְיִבְכֶּה בְּדֶמַע לְבָבוֹ וּבְדֶמַע עֵינָיו עַל חַטָּאָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַל דָּוִד (ש''ב כ''ג) הוּקַם עָל שֶׁהֵקִים עֻלָּהּ שֶׁל תְּשׁוּבָה וְאָמַר אֶל דִּמְעָתִי אַל תֶּחֱרַשׁ וְיִתְחָרֵט וְיִקְרַע סְגוֹר לִבּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (יואל ב') וְקִרְעוּ לְבַבְכֶם וְאַל בִּגְדֵיכֶם וְשׁוּבוּ. וְיִתְוַדֶה עַל מְנַת לַעֲזוֹב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כ''ח) וּמוֹדֶה וְעוֹזֵב יְרוּחָם וְיַעֲזוֹב דַּרְכּוֹ וְהִרְהוּרָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (ישעיה נ''ד) יַעֲזוֹב רָשָׁע דַּרְכּוֹ וְגוֹ' וִיפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו כָּאָמוּר (איכה נ') נַחְפְּשָׂה דְרָכֵינוּ וְנַחְקוֹרָה וְנָשׁוּבָה וְיִדְאַג וְיִתְאַנַּח וְאַנְחָתוֹ לְפָנָיו תָּבֹא וְיִכָּנַע לִבּוֹ עַל דֶּרֶךְ (מ''א כ''א) הֲרָאִיתָ כִּי נִכְנַע אַחְאָב וִישַׁנֶּה מַלְבּוּשָׁיו וְיִתְאַבֵּל וְיִתְאוֹנֵן עַל חַטָּאָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (שמות ל''ג) וַיִּתְאַבָּלוּ וְלֹא שָׁתוּ אִישׁ עֶדְיוֹ עָלָיו: